The history of medieval witch hunts tells how, from the flimsiest pretexts, such as a word out of context or an obscure statement, a libel has been issued against an entire group - with dire consequences.

In the case of climate change and climate science, instead of looking at authentic data sets by the world's premier science organizations (temperatures, precipitation, droughts, extreme weather events, migration of fauna and flora around the globe), advocates of the pro-carbon polution lobby are

PLAYING THE MAN INSTEAD OF THE BALL.

Basically they will not accept any evidence, claiming scientists are not telling the truth.

Why don't they go to climate change affected regions to witness the evidence for themselves?

They studiously ignore is that, even where errors occur, Science is a self-correcting method, as contrasted with the disinformation and manufacture of "data" by some of the pro-carbon pollution lobby, which are rarely highlighted in the media.

In the case of the IPCC, the fact remains that many of its future projections constitute CONSERVATIVE UNDERESTIMATES, as evidenced by the rates of change of Arctic and Antarctic ice melt and of sea level rise.

Major changes in attitude on the part of the public, governments and corporation are needed, in view of the mountain of evidence for dangerous climate change, if humanity wishes to ensure a future for its young and future generations.

Robert Watson's article is well reasoned - but it will not remove hands from ears, or open tightly shut eyes.
It certainly won't stop the screaming "I can't hear you!"

Watson is correct to at least this extent, the series of errors and omissions found to date in the 2007 report in themselves and individually are not so important. But to date on at least two instances - glaciers and rain forests - the IPCC authors are known to have simply grabbed activist material and chucked it into the report. In at least another part of the report, that of tropical diseases, the panel authors ignored the leading experts in the field and went with the worst forecasts they could find.
To then suggest that panel authors are conservative in their assessments is patently ludicrous. If Watson really wanted to defend the IPCC he should have taken a different tack.
None of this really affects the core of the report, the temperature forecasts, but those 2007 forecasts were based on decade old emission scenarios that even in 2007 had obvious problems - problems that were not corrected - left out magnetic solar activity which is now acknowledged by all sides to affect climate, and depend greatly on an assumption concerning relative humidity in the atmosphere.. and the science is still sound!
Watson would have done much better to acknowledge the obvious problems, and promise that the IPCC will be completely overhauled, as well as agree to submit its work to a truely independent body before release.

Andy1 writes

'Why don't they go to climate change affected regions to witness the evidence for themselves?'

Don't you know that Australia is used as a prime example of man made climate change? The problem is that almost every prediction made by the High Priests over the last 10 years has proven to be false. People visiting Bondi beach or the Great Barrier Reef for the last 60 years know that these high priests are simply playing politics using scaremongering tactics to achieve their own political purposes. It seems like being made Australian or pope of the year allows you to make the most ludicrous statements and be ignored no matter how wrong you are.

It is not just minor facts that the corrupt IPCC got wrong. They have been fraudulent, unscientific and deceitful and the author still wants us to have confidence in the 'science.'

And to think that Mr Rudd and Turnbull were almost allowed to add a big tax on people for this fraud is absolutely disgraceful.

"The IPCC concluded that the global temperature data and analyses are robust.."

And Microsoft concludes that we all need Windows, and the Labor Party concludes that we should have socialised medicine. Well, to quote Mandy Rice-Davies, they would, wouldn't they?

Once we have a few genuinely independent inquiries instead of the current round of whitewashing then we will be in a position to say what's 'robust' and what isn't. But things aren't looking good for the AGW alarmists...

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/16/another-ipcc-error-antarctic-sea-ice-increase-underestimated-by-50/

Can any but fellow travellers believe this guy? What a pile of rubbish.

When, & only when, every bit of research, every algorithm, & every bit of raw data is released to the world, freely available to all, will there be any chance of this lot regaining any traction.

Of course, those of them who have been, or should have been, found guilty of fraud are excluded.

The problem is public perception and the recent fiascos re IPCC have done great damage to the climate change lobby.

Andy1 "Why don't they go to climate change affected regions to witness the evidence for themselves?"

How will we know when we visit these sites, whether the evidence is of Man-made or Natural climate change?

Can you tell the difference Andy1?

Please enlighten us with the science behind the ability to distinguish between the two.

Frightening the children time ... look, over there, AGW did that!

Science indeed.

The issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming is suspiciously like a world wide hoax. Prof S. Fred Singer of SEPP described it as “a way to extract money from poor people in rich countries to give it to rich people in poor countries
1. Prof Phil Jones of ‘ClimateGate’ fame says that there has been no global warming for fifteen years. Is this really the result of carbon pollution?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk:80/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
2. The US Senate criticises the ClimateGate scientists.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63
Quote ‘In our view, the CRU documents and emails reveal .. unethical and potentially illegal behaviour by some of the world’s pre eminent climate scientists’
3. Dr Joseph D’Aleo and Dr Anthony Watts who are very highly qualified in this work, undertook a detailed examination of the temperature readings and found that the raw data had been extensively compromised.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html
Quote “Instrumental .temperature data . have been so widely tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant global warming in the 20th Century. All ..temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
4. Commerce has problems but so do States in the USA.
a http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5200&linkbox=true&position=3
Quote "With billions of dollars at stake, EPA outsourced the scientific basis for its greenhouse gas regulation to a scandal-plagued international organization that cannot be considered objective or trustworthy," said Greg Abbott, Texas's Attorney General.
b ` http://www.washingtontimes.com:80/news/2010/feb/21/cuccinelli-fights-the-epa/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_must-read-stories-today
Quote "(Virginia’s) Attorney General Cuccinelli believes that the EPA acted in an arbitrary and capricious fashion and failed to properly exercise its judgment

The IPCC played us for suckers , they insulted our intelligence , they Snarled Slurs at us , they Lied to us , they Ripped us off costing us millions of Dollars , they locked up our Peoples farms and harmed our Farming People .
We should call an inquiry , a Royal Commission to find out Where all these Climate Scientists and Professors came from check the Term out is there any such "Thing"? How so suddenly did we find thousands of these integrity compromised Professors ? With the exception of Pilmer I am not prepared to see them as anything less than petulant Frauds , passionate Liars and Dunces .

I find it terribly disappointing that we , us Aussies are to tolerate people , politicians included who are prepared to confiscate Farmers Farms ? Apparently all the Dinkum Aussies are all gone ?
Climate Change Bastards know no bounds .

Yet we were all set up by Rudd&Wong to hand over Megga Millions to the IPCC Dreamers , Despots from third world Countries etc. and a hoard of Bureaucrats like Godwin .

Strange things happen like a five installment ululate is happening on "The Drum" begging that we desist being nasty to the CC Fanatics and Frauds, it's on the ABC website .

Telling People Lies will Never be Seen as a Goodwill Gesture !

"That is why I applaud the University of East Anglia - affiliated with the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, where I work as strategic director - for rapidly establishing an independent review of the whole issue"

yep, I'd be proud too, set up a self assesing enqquirey like the show Yes Minister did .. oh

"Nature Editor-in-Chief Philip Campbell, who withdrew last month over challenges to his impartiality based on a December 2009 interview in which he said "The scientists [involved in the CRU emails] have not hidden the data. . . . they have behaved as researchers should."

oh dang .. "independent .. a new definition?

Critics have also questioned Geoffrey Boulton's place on that CRU review panel. Mr. Boulton, today a professor emeritus at the University of Edinburgh, has in the past worked at the University of East Anglia's School of Environmental Science, which established CRU in 1972. More recently, Mr. Boulton signed a December 2009 petition, orchestrated by the U.K. Meteorological Office that has collaborated with CRU, declaring "the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities."

CRU investigating CRU, hardly going to be "independent" is it, it is set up to deceive and absolve - and go on treating the public as idiots who can be deceived. Well some can and some cannot, those that cannot must be attacked and ridiculed .. oh

On the IPCC's investigation into the CRU emails "we stand firmly behind the rigor and robustness of the 4th Assessment Report's conclusions. . . . based on an overwhelming body of evidence from thousands of peer-reviewed and independent scientific studies." That is to say, the outcome of Mr. Pachauri's inquiry has already been determined—the science will be found to be sound.

Too bad for him that the IPCC is likely past the point where it can salvage its tattered reputation."

Re the IPCC, yes, some intellecual fraud there. I remember back in the 70s the Victorian police held an investigation in to graft and fraud in that state. Once they realised that a considerable amount of graft and fraud was being perpetrated by the Graft and Fraud squad of the Victorian police, they closed the inquiry down. Such is life.

I have little doubt that there is some man made climate warming. I'm just far from certain that I want the 'Graft and Fraud' squad carrying out the investigation.

Clearly many of the respondents didn't note that this topic is actually about the need for changing the IPCC.

Clearly the issue has been resolved it's all rubbish! Hasbeen has spoken.
That's it! sack all the scientists . All knowing Hasbeen knows better than all of them and has spoken.

Has been, your topic proves you have no idea about AGW (ACC) theory or that the science has move since the 1950/60. *In fact it's a moving feast*.

Fred Singer is dead his work is out of date it has been superseded by later information. Site, like Science daily and EurekaAllert publish about 5-10 new climate specific scientific papers weekly. Goodness knows how many on those with oblique relevance.

NB The IPCC reports are the equivalent of researching, reading and writing and producing a totally new windows O/S. We all know how perfect that isn't, when first released. We don't discard the entire workable package because of bugs...Get real.
Like windows the report is a snap shot of the science at that time.

The problem with the IPCC reports are the fallibilities of the bureaucratic methodology that sifts the mountains of data, papers, observations etc.

Like the man said the science is sound it is how it gets to the report in a form that non scientists can digest it that is the problem.

-Glacier-gate's error was the 35 year time frame not the fact that the Himalayan Glaciers that feed the four main eastern rivers have/are retreating at unprecedented rates. (a bureaucratic error not a science one).

- Climate gate was one man's sloppiness. It DIDN'T alter the conclusions.
NB all the information data measurement and their model's source code are available from NASA on their New combined Climate Change web site for ready access.

-The melting Poles some of this conformational data, maps, pictures are available from several sources.
NB a lot of this data is new from new satellites l after and not accounted for in Plimer's book, Fred singer's Opus and the scientifically dubious theory hawked by Monckton.

Andy is at it again.

He suggests we go to regions affected by climate change and see for ourselves.

Andy, it's supposed to be GLOBAL isn't it? In that case, if I walk out my back door I should see the devastation you predict. Well I have, and it ain't there. It's not happening. Nothing much has changed since people like you were campaigning about global cooling in the mid 1970s.

And now it's cooling again.

Please tell us what phenomena you would accept as evidence AGAINST catastrophic global warming, Andy. None, I expect, because it's a religious conviction for you and your mates.

As for Watson, could there possibly be a less credible person on earth to run the whitewash for Jones and the other scammers?

Déjà vu - Robert Watson's article is well reasoned - but it will not remove hands from ears, or open tightly shut eyes. It certainly won't stop the screaming "I can't hear you!"

__________

Curmudgeon (at home?)

I remember not so long ago you were using HadCrut charts to prove your point, what's changed that?
____

Runner

High Priests? Where's God in all this?

____

Jon J

Independent inquiry by these folk: Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling, Jr., Robert E. Davis, Paul C. Knappenberger?

____

Hasbeen

You've tweaked my interest - you found it difficult reading chpt 9 of the AR4 WG1 report (congrats on giving it a go) and you didn't read any of the referenced papers ... so, what are you going to do with every bit of research, every algorithm, & every bit of raw data?

____

Phoenix94

You lost me when you chimed in with "Dr Anthony Watts" - pray tell, where did he get his PhD again, and in what year?

____

ShazBaz001

Fancy that, Plimer doesn't tell porkies. And settle down, you are blowing a fuse (or something).

____

Amicus

Who would you have conduct the inquiries (there are a few going on as you would know) and would you accept the outcome? Really, this is not a trick question.

____

Cheryl

Very interesting about your memory of the 70s Victorian police investigation in to graft and fraud in that state. Just wondering, what's that got to do with the price of apples in Madagascar?

____

examinator

How dare you!

PS

KenH

What evidence would it take for you to accept the alternative?

i.e. it is very likely that human activity is significantly contributing to the climate change we are experiencing now.

One more, do you think global warming means increasing temperatures every year and in every suburb?

Examinator - actually Fred Singer isn't dead, or at least he was alive last week. He's 86 this year but still writing.. saw stuff by him this week.. and nope, despite your fond wishes, his book is not out of date.. In fact, the 1500 year (plus or minus 500 years) climate cycle discussed in Unstoppable Global Warming by Singer and Avery is well known and widely acknowledged. The Hockey stick debate was about whether it was confined to the Northern Hemisphere or whether it was world wide. Now its known to be world wide.
The IPCC has far more to answer for than he does.

quanda

you ask 'Runner

High Priests? Where's God in all this?'

I suggest to you He is still on the throne as opposed to some 'scientist' who actually think they are.

examinator "NB The IPCC reports are the equivalent of researching, reading and writing and producing a totally new windows O/S....

The problem with the IPCC reports are the fallibilities yada yada"

It is not acceptable that they make mistakes and are sloppy and can be seen and perceived to have vested interests.

Why should we gamble the world's future on such, as you say, fallible science?

When their reports are then expected to be taken up by government and used to change economies, introduce tax systems, compensate other countries to the tune of Billions if not trillions of dollars, disallow coastal building, and on it goes - it is not a clear area of science since there are so many papers with alarming contradictions and many scientists who do not agree with the mainstream groupthink.

Get real mate, why should we allow a bunch of hysterical self interest types who, have all the other academic trim at stake, to change the world according to their view. (e.g. AndyG mass extinction)

"Like the man said the science is sound it is how it gets to the report in a form that non scientists can digest it that is the problem."

If these scientists are not smart enough to work out how to convey a clear message without getting fouled in peer review scandals, leaked emails showing bias and perversion of data and petty squabbles - then it is the sciences problem, not the publics.

There is skepticism, because it is not clear, it is not simple physics or anything else, it is a very complex science and idiots try to make out it is simple and if you don't understand it, then move aside the scientists know what's right for you.

The scientists also do not correct all the BS that flows, like from Al Gore or Flannery, so why should we trust they are telling us the truth when they do nothing to dispel mistruths?

Climate science is brought down not by skeptics, but by climate scientists themselves with massive hysterics, lack of honesty and contradictions.

A good question, what evidence would it take to convince one that human activity is causing catastrophic global warming? The fact is, evidence of catastrophic AGW is a necessary but not sufficient precondition of policy action.

Even if the climatology were conceded, the ecology does not follow. Carbon dioxide is plant food. The warm periods have historically been better, not worse, for life on earth. Governments have spent billions trying, and failing to find a greenhouse effect, but even it existed, the proper conclusion is that the abundance and diversity of life would be greater not lesser - you know, like a greenhouse?

Even if the ecology followed, the ethics, epistemology, economics and politics still would not and do not follow. How are we to know which person should be disadvantaged, by how much, to benefit which other person, by how much, how far in the future, where, when and why? Who is this “we” the collectivists keep referring to? Do they presume to speak for everyone in the world, including those who disagree with them, and whose liberty, property and lives the warmists would violate?

The economic and ethical illiteracy of the warmists is such that they cannot understand the implications of, or even the connection between, governments forcibly reducing food production on a massive scale in the most productive countries – the West – and people dying of starvation from food shortages in the food-importing countries.

The great political fallacy underlying the whole warmist belief system is the implication that, by establishing the fact of catastrophic global warming, the warmists have established that *therefore* government can and should take action to prevent it or fix the problem.

That is a simple non sequitur. Science doesn't supply value judgments, while policy action requires them. Therefore even if the climatology were conceded, which it’s not, *nothing whatsoever* would follow as a matter of policy.

That’s just in theory. In practice the politics will degenerate into the most protean and inane corruption the world has ever seen. For example, recently the British government paid the head of the IPCC one billion pounds of taxpayers’ money to close down his steel plant – Britian’s last - so he can take it back to India and set it up there free of all this "the-sky-is-a-falling" foolery.

Since carbon dioxide is implicated in all human activity, a power to control carbon dioxide must be an power to control all human activity – an unlimited power. The great economic fallacy is the idea that, *if only* we could vest in government total control over any and every aspect of production, how much more ethical and well-ordered would be the outcome!

The sheer idiocy of the belief system is so great, so full of grandiose culpable ignorance, that it is a veritable Herculean labour to begin refuting its myriad fallacies.

Peter

<< A good question, what evidence would it take to convince one that human activity is causing catastrophic global warming? >>

Who was asking that question - the author, another commenter, did I miss it?

In my post above, I asked KenH "What evidence would it take for you to accept the alternative?"

Believe it or not, the vast majority of scientists are NOT saying that "human activity is causing catastrophic global warming".

It seems your statement (claim) is another deliberate distortion to misrepresent what the vast majority of scientists are saying. Innocent onlookers would be confused and I wouldn't blame them.

If you are not doing this deliberately, please ... explain. I would be happy to apologise. Otherwise, please retract.

Here's Watson: "Also, a statement from 11 science academies in developed and developing countries concluded that climate change is real, and that we need to prepare for the consequences, and urged all nations to take prompt action to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions". The quality of everything emanating from these 11 academies can best be judged by noting that one of them is none other than the Academy of Science of Zimbabwe, patron and chief scientist Robert Mugabe.

In today's Australian is an article by Paul Monk ("More Heat Than Light"; promoted as Climate Change, What Would Albert Einstein Do?).This seems to be very relevant to this post & the role of the IPPC & I recommend it to all, whatever their position on this issue might be.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/more-heat-than-light/story-e6frg8nf-1225835659512

Monk puts forward, as an example of the Popperian ideal, the so called Solway conferences, in Brussels, between 1927 & 1930. In these series of meetings Albert Einstein, Henrdrik Lorentz & Max Planck, the three "grand masters" of early 20th century physics,confronted the proponents of the new theory of quantum mechanics,Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg & Paul Dirac.

As Monk relates, "Einstein was especially resistant to the new hypothesis". "Again & again, over days, he came up with thought experiments designed to show Bohr & his proteges that they must be in error. Again & again, after hours of debate, they would demonstrate that his efforts to refute their hypothesis did not work.

As Heisenberg later wrote, this was a great test for them and left them much better off, because such a man had tried again & again to show them that they were wrong and had been unable to do so".

And as to the AGW & the IPPC.
"Perhaps the greatest difficulty, however, because the Solvay conference in this case has been mediated by the UN's Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change and the impression has been growing slowly for years that the IPPC has not run like Solvay at all. The IPPC, it seems, has not been a clearing house for attempts to refute the AGW hypopthesis, but rather a political body committed to finding evidence that AGW is a reality."

While you blokes are discussing global warming, I thought you may be interested to see a quote made on March 20 2000

"However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent."

Note the institute from which the quote came.

Some people wonder as to why there are sceptics

>> Why should we gamble the world's future on such, as you say, fallible science?

because it's not that fallible, and because you have no better choice.

bushbasher,of course we have a choice, the choice not to make stupid decisions.

qanda,
How dare I what?
Perhaps I missed something?
do tell I'm always interested to learn.
____________________

Curmudeon

Like Mark Twain said "Rumours of my (his) death are greatly exaggerated"

I stand corrected I appologise to OLOers and Fred for saying he's dead. HE's NOT DEAD.

I clearly misread the parent site for his SEP site -> NIPCC site -> (Heartland.org a right wing US free trade site) for his opus maxima an 800 page document now a few years old, for which he was paid around $100k.

I quote from John Florio (a contemporary of Shakespeare) "He who lies down with dogs will rise with fleas.

QandA "Amicus Who would you have conduct the inquiries (there are a few going on as you would know) and would you accept the outcome? Really, this is not a trick question."

It has to be people who are not in any way involved with the group being investigated. When you bring in such people as old boys from the same organisation, an editor who was clearly biased in the supposed "peer review" process - it is obviously a set up, and though they will get the result they want, they will not change public perceptions and indeed will reinforce the perception that they are rotten, and not to be trusted.

Bring in physicists, chemists, engineers, people from different areas who have nothing to gain or lose from the result, and who can be trusted not to bring pre-conceived beliefs - difficult, but that's the problem the AGW hysterics have created, it's now their problem of appearance, and theirs now to solve.

Playing politics with inquiries may seem a good way to guard your university's or institute's reputation from the barbarians, but remember those barbarians pay for the research and also are expected to pay for the solutions to the supposed problems identified.

Don't treat your audience or the general public like idiots, even if they are, you have no right to do so. They will turn on you, and your supporters and in the long run you are the losers, not the public.

examinator "I stand corrected I appologise to OLOers and Fred for saying he's dead. HE's NOT DEAD.", yes, that's the kind of sloppy work we've come to expect from AGW hysterics, good to see you're true to form and consistent.

This thread and one similar, are focused on the issue of “what and if” the IPCC should become. IMHO it’s irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if it goes or stays changes or remains the same. This is because the IPCC can never again have any political influence. By that I mean that no administration can possibly pass legislation based upon IPCC assessments, ever!

In the short term the IPCC and lead authors/institutions have gone into self preservation mode. A few have started internal “investigations” which will conclude no wrong doing.

The pro AGW public and media will crank up the alarmism science (already happening) and try to breathe life into the cause.

Politicians will stall and obfuscate as they try to balance personal credibility and political survival against the level of public awareness and sentiment.

In the medium term the serious business is being played out in the US. The two most comprehensive catalogues of criticism against the IPCC are currently the US Senate Minority Report and the Peabody Energy petition to the EPA.

We should not make the mistake of underestimating the awesome power and reach of the US constitution or its legal system, particularly if some of Uncle Sam’s taxpayers think they have been duped.

The EPA’s “sources” will be tested in US courts so it matters not what the various internal IPCC/CRU investigations conclude.

We may see class action and we may see States/Industries looking for a “Mr. Deep Pockets” (look out Al). Some may seek redress for financial gains made from falsehoods or compensation for similar costs.

In the longer term, the EU will be left with the only Carbon Trading Scheme but nobody with whom to trade. The carbon pricing will drop to levels that cannot sustain private investment in renewable energy. “Tin Rattling” NGO’s and conservation groups will decline in numbers as their shopping centre and on-line revenues dry up. AGW as we know it will mutate into much more localized environmental action that does not require the “Carbon Satan of AGW” to drive it

Its not just about what the IPCC eventually came up with, but the processes they used, and the protocols employed.

The Stephen McIntyre submission to the CRU enquiry shows quite clearly that the processes have been corrupted, and an old boys club has contrived to produce the outcome they wanted.

The same groups of people were on the editorial boards of multiple climate journals and ensured that peer rewiewers acceptable to them were appointed.

Lead Authers were also Peer Rewiewers. Peer Review was used to suppress or delay adverse publications.

Leaders of the pack were given soft reviews by their mates in the pack

.....and on it goes.

When people try to defend the IPCC result by pointing to the peer review papers, they are being disingenuous in the extreme.

Then of course John Mcleans analysis shows yet further the extent of this less than satisfactory process.

There are conflicts of interest, shonky behaviour and incompetence all over this little scam.

It is no basis for any Govt to place a giant barnacle on its economy ..and anyone that does will be tossed out PDQ

Examinator - How dare I what?

State the bleeding obvious ;-)
Well, except goo'dol Fred is still kickin, sorta.
______

Amicus

A spokesman for the UNEP (and WMO) has indicated that an announcement will be made next week that would offer a “credible and sensible review of how the IPCC operates”. I am not sure of the legalities.

Would you be satisfied if "a major scientific society or a coalition of National Academies of Science" conducted the review?

Sound advice, can only try - it's hard sometimes :(

_______

Bigmal

You had some good suggestions in a previous thread, let's hope they get tweaked.

QANDA

Yes you are right I did make 10 suggestions initially then added another three ..cant find other three, but here are the 10 again

"Try these ten only suggestions for improving the IPCC process:

1. All those involved are required to sign a Declaration of Interests Document, as is standard practice elsewhere. This would apply to all;
• Members of the IPCC Board, including the Chairman.
• Lead authors and contributors.

2. No one is to be involved in any matter, or subject of discussion and evaluation, where a conflict or potential conflict may arise. They would be required to leave the room, and not be involved by any other means.

3. No assessment/discussion of any selected Peer Reviewed paper (by any Journal) may be undertaken and adjudicated upon, when any of the authors involved are present.

4. Any paper that has been rejected for further considerations as part of the IPCC assessment process should be identified, and the reason for rejection published.

5. Dissenting reports are permitted.

6. A new Board of the IPCC be created, and a new Chairman selected/appointed.

7. The HQ office and support facilities are relocated to another country, not in Europe.

8. Support staff to be turned over, with at least 30% of new appointments made.

9. SPM to be written after the Technical Evaluations have been completed, and signed off by all senior scientists involved.

10. Scientists who have received money in the last 10 years from any oil or coal company are to be precluded.Similarly greeny NGOs are to be completely excluded from the process.

There, that should solve every ones problems. Whats the betting that the outcome and advice is totally different.

If no changes whatever are made, then the next assesment is doomed before it starts by having zero credibility.

Feel free to add your own.Posted by bigmal, Thursday, 14 January 2010 3:48:09 PM

RPG,
I did NOT say that the science was bad. I said the construction of the IPCC report has problems and I addressed that topic which was the point of the article.

Nor am I defending The IPCC cock ups.( apposite archery term)

I was trying to put the topic into proportion.

Exactly the same processes occur daily in boardrooms and the economy. Information is filtered as it rises to the decision makers who then try to make the best interpretation they can.

Every big organization has internal flaws and politics, that's human nature.

We can only try and hope to get the best equipped, qualified people to input information , run bureaucracy and make the decision.

At the end of the day someone/small group has to make the decision.
There is no way that there's going to be consensus on everything this complex.

Contrarians generally are too keen to condemn and in the process, the baby get's thrown out with the bathwater.

*We* civilians can do is make realistic attempts to understand the questions and let the experts tell us what it means.
Failing that, why have experts?

With due respect the contrarians, I find it ludicrous that people who are neither equipped, knowledgeable enough or sufficiently qualified or experienced in the relevant disciplines claiming to be able to second guess those who are.

In addition to the above short comings, some individuals get on line and state it's all rubbish with out a shred of credible evidence (note: credible)....media stories don't qualify.

The only half way credible source, thus far, is Fred Singer but his evidence is apparently out dated.

I challenge the contrarians to *specifically* state how would they better arrange collate, assess, filter the massive amounts of data?
It's easier to find fault than do something that is incredibly complex.

BTW I simply think that AGW/ACC is the best working theory thus far. Sound enough to start actions.
NB I *don't* give it unquestioning allegiance.

The tax/economic barnacle references are hyperbolic emotional responses not rational ones.(their dubiousness is a whole new topic)

examinator, OK, I see your point, and you did not say the science was bad, apologies.

However, I disagree that boardrooms have these problems, when you are a company director, you have LEGAL obligations and you can GO TO JAIL if you screw up or fabricate..

There are no penalties for these people on the IPCC or CRU, and big benefits if they get away with things that are questionably moral and ethical, hence their straying off the track. There is big money involved and it looks like it has done some damage.

Do you think if CRU is found to be guilty of breaking the law on FOI requests, or they are found to have fabricated datasets, they might go to jail?

Of course not, so please refrain from comparing them to institutions that are responsible and accountable and have rules and even a government watchdog, who is very active. Who does not resort to having mates and old buddies and colleagues doing reviews and inquiry, what a joke. Imagine if AWB had been investigated by a panel of other agricultural exporters, what do you reckon they would have found?

On "I challenge the contrarians to *specifically* state how would they better arrange collate, assess, filter the massive amounts of data?"

I see no reason to do that at all - why do we need a body specifically set up to find a problem and indeed their entire existence is tied to finding the bigger problem the better?

We need experts we can trust, is the answer to why do we need them. For many years there have been doubts about the veracity of the data that Hansen and CRU have been dealing with, in fact there have been constant FOI requests that now we know CRU has contrived to get around.

Those sort of experts we can do without, they should be horsewhipped, publicly, lose tenure, all their benefits and thrown out in disgrace and if they are not - climate science will never recover, there will always be doubt if they cannot deal with internal correuption.

In a 1000 page report people have found a few errors none of which contradict the substantive findings of the report.
What should be of greater concern is the assumptions that the report makes about how the future will unfold. To the best of my knowledge the impact of natural resource depletion is not factored into any of the future scenarios.

baygon - the IPCC report is not about natural resource depletion, it is about corroborating AGW with CO2

The IPCC report has many findings, have you read it, any of it, any of the conclusions, any of the assumptions?

I think most people just babble on about what they think the IPCC have done, and is about, based on various fansites, not what it actually is.

please go and read it http://www.ipcc.ch/

BAYGON

Can you be more specific in how you define "natural resource depletion"?

Here is a link to the SRES, an interesting read.

Caveat - prepared by econometricians.

AR4 itself should not be confused with the SRES.

_____

Amicus

Following up from above;

Would you be satisfied if "a major scientific society or a coalition of National Academies of Science" conducted the review?

Have you read the SRES, and AR4?

I suppose it would help if I included the link :)

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/emission/

qanda - why do I feel I should check my wallet or look around for hidden cameras, your line of questioning makes me suspect that I'm being set up.

"Would you be satisfied if "a major scientific society or a coalition of National Academies of Science" conducted the review?"

Depends, on the actual individuals who ended up serving on the review and what their connections are or were, who they drink with are married to etc.

As I've said, it's all about managing perceptions and thus far it has been abysmal on the part of climate science, would you agree?

If you arrange a review that from the outset is unacceptable as to diligence, then credibility will be even further damaged.

I have read many parts of SRES and AR4, yes .. so? Some is interesting, some is so boring and dry I wonder if it is deliberately so (joke)

I'm not convinced if that's where the line of questioning is heading. It's all very petty, but again, I don't know enough about the science to recognize what's not being said or left out, but am skilled enough to know that's the case.

baygon - the IPCC report is not about natural resource depletion, it is about corroborating AGW with CO2

It is about a bit more than that - it is also about projecting forward what will happen unless we reduce levels of CO2.
If you look at their future scenarios none of them explore the impact of both peak oil and peak coal.
If you want to have a look at a peer reviewed article on the subject then this is the clearest I have read todate:

Validity of the fossil fuel production outlooks in the IPCC Emission Scenarios

you will find it here:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11053-010-9113-1

All of the developed nations continue to see economic growth as essential to our future survival but a failure to take natural resource depletion into account ( we are also running fast out of the various materials that are essential for making our modern technology work); which assumes you can have infite growth on a finite globe is setting us up for a bigger disaster than any that can be imagined by just looking at CO2 emisssions.
To understand the impact that the growth fetish has on climate change have a look at this video
http://www.impossiblehamster.org/
only five minutes but makes the point eloquently

baygon I don't disagree with you at all about resources, it's just not what the IPCC is about.

I can't remember where I saw it, but there are recent papers saying AGW can't continue at the rate ascribed to burning fossil fuels, because there are not enough left .. have you heard that?

Regardless we have to find alternative energy sources, but I feel some of the ones that have the spotlight right now, wind, solar, may not be int he right direction and take the funding from alternatives yet to be explored, of course I have to admit to being a nuclear power supporter.

I'll take a look at the video later, I have limited B/W where I am right now - thanks

(ps - I used to go to a pub many years ago, where the folks running the snack bar were recent European arrivals, so when they called on the PA an order, like Bacon and Egg sandwich, it sounded like Baygon and Egg sandwich - I'm easily amused. Your tag always reminds me of that pub ..)

Amicus, it was not a trick question, it was genuine. That you don't like it is in no doubt, your answer (while appreciated) reflects that suspicion.

Yes, you may want to know who they drink with, who they are married to, etc - and if the 'sceptics' can justify a 'Spanish inquisition', so be it.

However, I get the feeling that most 'sceptics' won't be satisfied with anything that a major scientific society or a coalition of National Academies of Science can come up with ... although I would love to be proved wrong.

<< As I've said, it's all about managing perceptions and thus far it has been abysmal on the part of climate science, would you agree? >>

That is a loaded question. There is/has been problems in disseminating the science. Nevertheless, the science is the science - no one can alter that.

I asked re SRES and AR4 because what is not petty, most people are quite prepared to refute something that they haven't even read, let alone understood - they even confuse the two, no joke.

Qanda
I am not clear what you are saying, and not sure whether you are arguing as warmist or skeptic.

I was responding to this: “What evidence would it take for you to accept the alternative?

i.e. it is very likely that human activity is significantly contributing to the climate change we are experiencing now.”

I thought you were a warmist asking what evidence someone would require before they believe the warmist orthodoxy. If I was mistaken, I’m sorry.

rpg
"bushbasher,of course we have a choice, the choice not to make stupid decisions."

Who's "we"? You speak for everyone in the world including those who disagree with you do you?

Go ahead: answer the question. No other warmist ever has. Who's "we"?

peter hume "Who's "we"? You speak for everyone in the world including those who disagree with you do you?"

Yes, everyone is included in my "we",

as in "we, the people, everyone included, do not HAVE to make stupid decisions" "We" do not have to attempt to stop the climate changing, what a folly, that would be stupid.

Just as many people say "WE HAVE TO ACT NOW OR BECAUSE OF AGW THERE WILL BE xxxxxxxx"(insert favorite disaster here, what's his name can put his latest one, MASS EXTINCTION)

Who is that "we" referring to? The same inclusive, "we", obviously, when people say that, I'm not offended that they include people who may disagree with them, it's not an unusual grammatical term, is it?

What's your problem with a pronoun?

"Go ahead: answer the question. No other warmist ever has. Who's "we"?"

I'm surprised you think it's such a big challenge that no warmist has answered it, well then again, I'm not a warmist, I'm skeptical of AGW (just for the record)

It's a figure of speech.

it's a figure of speech, and a silly answer.

you cannot choose to not make stupid decisions. you can only choose to make decisions as rationally as possible upon the best available evidence.

bushbasher, what rubbish - if you weigh up the options and one of them is stupid, then to follow that line is to make a "stupid decision"

people make stupid decisions all the time e.g. "I'm OK, I've only had a couple of drinks" .. stupid decision, would you agree?

Or do we follow your line of thought that this is a good decision made "as rationally as possible upon the best available evidence" ..?

"you cannot choose to not make stupid decisions. you can only choose to make decisions as rationally as possible upon the best available evidence." your double negative is "silly", your line of logic is "silly"

People are people, they make dumb and stupid decisions .. mine was to engage with fools who want to argue about pronouns and the logic of decision making (i.e. that there are no stupid decisions), I admit it and will now desist.

RPG your rebuttal of Bushbasher does not work his comment:

"you cannot choose to not make stupid decisions. you can only choose to make decisions as rationally as possible upon the best available evidence."

Is fine as far as it goes.

The reality is that we are rarely in a position to rationally evaluate all the evidence available to us.

Perhaps the easiest way to illustrate this is by using a game of chess as an example.

An experienced or for that matter an inexperienced chess player will rarely be in a position to rationally evaluate the implication of a particular move. For example after both black and white have made their first move - white has 10 to the power of 10 permutations to consider if he is going to rationally evaluate his next move. Clearly he wont do that.

Instead if the opening is one he recognizes he will simply work through the 'traditional' moves only pausing to think if his opponant deviates from the standard.

The only time he begins to make rational choices by weighing up the evidence is when he comes to a brand new situation.

This is ultimately the problem with climate change. The majority of people are not climate scientists and have not had a chance to look at the literature. So like the chess player their most rational course of action would appear to be to continue on a business as usual trajectory - the changes that they perceive do not appear so drastic that a different course of action seems rational.

cont.

cont.
So when people like myself argue that climate change is a concern and that we need to think about the way we live I am inviting people to take the evidence of climate scientists on trust; even though that evidence does not square with their inuitive understanding of the world it would seem to them that I am inviting them to make an irrational choice.

The fact that I may not be able to convince people does not mean that they are stupid.

It makes far more sense to forget climate change and simply talk about ways whereby we can switch to a zerocarbon economy and show how making that switch will make us better off; the fact that we also happen to address climate change is a fortuitous byproduct - all we are doing is demonstrating to people by switching to a low carbon economy we are creating jobs and saving energy costs.

If people looked here http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/ they might be excited by a plan that makes us energy self sufficient, creates jobs and yes it also ensures we do our little bit about climate change but one can support that programme without having to give up on being climate change sceptic.

Big (Flat Earth) news: the IPCC is not perfect and the peer review process is not perfect! Oh! The sins! Oh! The wickedness!

There's enough data points up on the screen now to start hypothesising about the possible underlying patterns. How about: a full-frontal assault on the "Institutions of Reason".By whom? The "Institutions of Faith", of course! The NeoCons, the Fundamentalists- both Christian and Muslim.

The battle has been going on since the Renaissance, big wins were made by Reason during the Enlightenment, and with a few hiccups (early 20th century), Reason has been on a roll. And then Rollback started about 30 years ago. The universities, which were social beacons for Reason, were successfully neutered by starving them of funds and pushing them into selling MacKnowledge globally to survive. Thanks Mr Howard for your Australian contribution. Government research (CSIRO etc) was neutered by corporatisation which meant that the likes of Graeme Pearman were muzzled.

And then- Horrors! A new Gloabal Institution of Reason raises its head- the IPCC. How to deal with it? The Sin-trick of course! Like the way Kenneth Starr dealt with Clinton, Abbott is dealing with Rudd and the US Neocons are dealing with the Obama administration- question their virtues and highlight their sinfulness! It's a guaranteed winner- there's always a bit of sleaze going on- you've just got to go look for it. Aha! Some loose emails! Aha! Some errors in the IPCC's Bible! (There's none in the Bible and the Koran, of course). Aha! some shysters ripped off the Great Energy Conservation Scheme (of course Kevin led them into Temptation!)

Yes! Tear down the IPCC!- Cast its sinful worshippers of Reason into the fiery pits! They thought that the Globe would be warm! Try a good old Believers Hell!

Out with Reason! Out! Out! Bring in the Ayatollahs! Bring in the Cardinals! Believe! Believe! Believe!

jm - are you on drugs?

Peter
It's all muddled, don't want to get embroiled in the "I said, you said" game. Suffice to say, there are serious environmental, ecological and concomitant economic problems looming just over the horizon, it would be prudent to prepare now.

Baygon
Very well said.

Jedi
Yep, anti-intellectualism rears its ugly head through the guise of neo-conservatism, religious zealotry and anti-science wing-nuttery.

Amicus
That's a great response! I rest my case. George Lakoff called it "framing". Raise the spectre! Let it do its haunting! Of course JM isn't on drugs... just a figure of speech to refer to unusual statements...or is he? Hmm..

That's the style of the aforesaid anti-Reasonists. Never tackle the substantive issue rationally- just raise questions that allude to immorality of some kind. Immoral people can't be right, can they?

BTW does coffee count as a drug? I've had 2 strong ones today. Oh dear, I can smell sulphur already.

baygon, I'm not skeptical of climate change I'm skeptical about our involvement in it and if there is any involvement if it is all due to CO2 emissions.

I'm skeptical about how governments taxing the bejesus out of us, to redistribute to countries who can't get above basic corruption levels, is going to help at all.

I'm skeptical about scientists who in Australia will benefit from $800M in funding this year, Big Green eh, Big Oil doesn't even get mentioned anymore does it - as they say, follow the money to find the motive, and motive there is to get on the "climate change" gravy train. (rarely is it given the full title, AGW, so many like you, it seems think a skeptic of AGW is also a skeptic of CC - they are not, but I suspect you know that)

I'm skeptical about pouring money into schemes for developing energy that are just set up to take money from the government, thermal rocks for instance.

I'm skeptical about hysterical ranters who haunt these pages clapping together whenever anyone forecasts doom, so they can get on the bandwagon and preach their pet fantasy for an emissions free world.

I'm skeptical of people who want to end CO2 emissions but don't want Nuclear, which is CO2 free by the way, it has its own problems but if the CO2 is so bad, then everything else must pale into insignificance, since it is CO2 that's going to cause "mass extinction" isn't it?

But as I said, I'm NOT skeptical that the climate changes .. OK? Always has, always will, whether we were here or not, it would change.

Jedimaster, so you think reason went into decline around the time Star Wars came out and global warming hysteria started? Interesting. No wonder quancka relates to you.

Now, now, Whitmus! Your language is just giving me more data points for my hypothesis.

But you raise an interesting question about dates. The issue at hand is "Institutions of Reason". When one thinks about it- as science has been perceived as being the pinnacle of reason,its major institutions have been considered analogous to churches (in fact western universities were modeled on the church). The Enlightenment scientific establishments, such as the Royal Society,were a loose collection of gentleman scholars, not fully-fledged social institutions.

It was really only after WWII that large scale institutional science really took off, trading on the success of Project Manhattan. It soon became the Military/Industrial/Science institution, with Project Apollo its great achievement in 1969.

Along with many others, my own aspirations to a career as a NASA-funded physicist were aborted when NASA's budget was more than halved in 3 years in the early '70s, cutting out all the peripheral and esoteric curiosity-driven post-doc stuff that makes for powerful free enquiry.

Thereafter, science was pretty well reigned in- the '70s saw some of these erstwhile rocket scientists go into solar energy and environmental developments under Carter (including moi), until Reagan nuked the energy budget and boosted funding for "Star Wars" (the Strategic Defence Initiative).

Since then, it has been all down-hill for free-enquiry science that might give rise to difficult social questions- sure, science funding has grown, but on a tight commercial leash. I feel partly responsible for that, having managed the funding for dozens of "Centres of Excellence in Industry Focused Research" and Cooperative Research Centres in the '90s and early '00s.

So the IPCC and the research groups that feed it, could be seen as the first major demonstration of institutional science becoming a significant social force- venturing into predictions about unpleasant futures based on human behaviour- traditionally the province of the church. And, of course, in strict Islam, the future is strictly up to the will of Allah.

So there- the date was 1969. It did involve rocket science, but Luke Skywalker was still just a glint in George Lucas' eye.

Jedimaster, thaks for the insight.

With that background I can now understand, why you can't bear to let yourself believe that the CRU, IPCC, & the others could ever behave as they are now proven to have beaved. It must be painful for you even to contemplate.

However, it is time to take off those rose glasses mate, & see the facts. They have behaved this way, & there is only one possible reason. They were watching their world fall apart, as their theory failed.

Instead of trying to sustain the hoax, become part of the solution.

hasbeen - agreed, JediMaster's rants are becoming increasingly desperate and defensive.

Maybe he's in denial? He's certainly got anger, what next?

Hasbeen
..and your comments add more data points to support my hypothesis that the anti-AGWs follow the 7-point-drill I described in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10116, based on conjuring up sin and scandal then bait-and-switching it into allegations of crime (a la Monckton's "crimes against humanity").

I never said that these institutions or their members were, or are anything more than a bunch of people with a common view- in this case the common view that reason is preferred to slavish adherence to received superstition and claims to magic. These people brought you most of what makes modern life possible- without any Inquisitions or Jihads.

I liken science to ant coloniess, that are capable of finding the shortest path from a food source to the nest without using visual cues. No one ant is capable of knowing the whole picture, but they are driven by a simple principle: follow the strongest pheromone trail deposited by the ants in front. Their path starts rather randomly, but becomes straighter and straighter, based on this simple principle. (http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~mdorigo/ACO/RealAnts.html) Some ants undoubtedly wander off, but collectively, they are ruthlessly efficient.

Similarly, scientific "food" is empirically-based, reasoned explanations and predictions; their "pheromone" is Occam's razor- the shortest explanation is the best. Like ants, Some of them wander off track, but the inexorable forces of their collective drive for their "food" with their potent "pheromone" means that the most efficient explanations and predictions ultimately prevail.

CRU is just one of many scientific ant-heaps. The IPCC is the biggest ant-heap in the climatology world. Occasional ditherings by individuals or even groups of scientists don't change the basic premise that collective action by scientists is more likely to help us out of our present problems than the Vatican, Mecca or wherever the neocons and other fundamentalists get their instructions.

Well, we've seen the shovels of media-driven dirt thrown at the IPCC ant-heap. A few lead ants have had their antennae knocked off. I'm wondering what the next move on science might be- what kind of metaphorical Antex will be used? Perhaps Baygon knows?

Sorry to go back to analogies again, but due to the huge importance of energy to the global economy, telling the world that they need to cut back in emissions is as well received as telling your wife that she needs to lose weight, and that she needs to cut out chocolate.

The exact relationship of a block of chocolate to weight is yet to be established, but there is no doubt there is a relationship.

The IPCC will bear the brunt of the denial, and any perceived impropriety will be seized on as a failure of the science.

The balance between filtering the information so that is sufficiently simple for general consumption (which is open to accusations of concealment) or providing all the raw data (when no one understands it) is difficult.

The IPCC has no chance of pleasing everyone. If we are to replace it then the question is with what.

A recent article on Alternet Environment is well worth a read
http://www.alternet.org/story/145838/how_the_mountain_of_climate_change_evidence_is_being_used_to_undermine_the_cause?page=entire
Comparing the fossil fuel Lobby's campaign to the OJ Simpson trial is an interesting take on the problem.
RPG and Hasbeen no one is asking you to change your opinion about climate change - in fact none of our opinions matter. This is one of the realities of science. The Inquistion got Galileo to recant but unfortunately for the Vatican Mother Nature overruled Mother Church and hence we are stuck with a heliocentric solar system.
What I suspect is a far greater problem for the IPCC is the influence that politicians have on the way the findings are reported.

baygon, thanks for the analogy - I agree, the warmists and IPCC may well get their way and convince governments to make stupid decisions, and mother nature will deal with the folly in her own way, by ignoring the rantings of warmist scientologists, and continue to warm or cool regardless of the dickerings of primitive scientists, which today's scientists will be in 50 or 100 years.

The scientists make mistakes, the ones who review their papers make mistakes, so it DOES MATTER that mistakes are found because it shows the human side of the science is fallible, as much as blowhards demand that mere little errors hardly matter, they do matter.

It shows we don't know as much as we should and are being arrogant that what we know is adequate to recommend changing the world according to their predictions, no thanks, I'm not gambling ona bunch of prima donnas who are clearly attracted to money.

I don't think your opinion or any other person on OLO matters either, it's just a forum of opinion, no world shattering events take place here, yet some people clearly puff up and demand everyone either agree or ship out, eh - what pompous twats, full of p*ss and wind.

jm, with his hypothesis is a bully, trying to intimidate skeptics with his personal logic, to back down and cease to infuriate him/her by being skeptical when he has INSISTED we are NOT TO DO SO!

He/she has a hyposthesis, so there!

If you call yourself a jedimaster, obviously you have personal powers in line with what, a mob of "superhumans" in a movie? Still not a complete master, as people still seem to withstand the jedi mind control eh .. maybe just a jedi, or is the ego bruised by such a demotion?

rpg
Your utterances are totally offensive and have no have place in any civil discourse.If you think that OLO is of no consequence,then why don't you use somewhere else to empty your bile and venom.

I offered an idea as an hypothesis- or don't you like words with more than one syllable? You can agree with it or refute it- it's an idea- it's not a person. I- and I am sure others,would like to know WHY you think that our ideas are wrong- we are here because we are trying to learn. Tackle the idea- not the man (or woman). That's why I am alarmed at denialist behaviour- it seems to be of a pettern, similar to patterns that we have seen or learnt about from past eras- eras of intolerance, abuse, fear, superstition- from the witches of Eastwick to Joe McCarthy, from Socrates to Galileo to Arthur Koestler's semi fictional character in "Darkness at Noon".

Please tell me how you can bully someone with hypotheses and logic. The last time I saw that happen was in Monty Python's "Argument" sketch (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Argument_Sketch).

You have no idea who I am, and as far as I am concerned that doesn't matter one bit- it's my IDEAS, and your IDEAS that count here- not who we are- that's why we use pseudonyms. Mine is just a play on my initials. It's no more presumptuous than for someone to call themself Baygon (does he kill ants in his spare time? or bushbasher (does he knock down trees for the fun of it?).

Opinion, surely, is another name for hypothesis or conjecture- an idea about which we have a hunch, but the data isn't available to provide any great certainty. We put it out there on line-to see if others support it or refute it with there data and observations. We can be robust and ribald, witty or profane, but surely, unvarnished abuse has no place here. This is not the Spanish Inquisition-or is it? Then nobody expects....

Amicus

Re: << A spokesman for the UNEP (and WMO) has indicated that an announcement will be made next week that would offer a “credible and sensible review of how the IPCC operates”. I am not sure of the legalities.

Would you be satisfied if "a major scientific society or a coalition of National Academies of Science" conducted the review? >>

Do you have any substantive comment to make about this ->

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34036&Cr=climate+change&Cr1=

The InterAcademy Council (IAC), a scientific organization bringing together experts from around the world, has been tasked with reviewing the IPCC’s processes and procedures to strengthen the quality of its reports.

The review will be led by IAC co-chairs Robbert Dijkgraaf, who heads the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science, and Lu Yongxiang, President of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

“It will be conducted completely independently of the United Nations,” Mr. Ban emphasized today.

Mr. Dijkgraaf said today that the IAC seeks to “assure nations that they will receive sound, scientific advice” so that “governments and citizens alike can make informed decisions.”

Scientists will be selected to serve on a voluntary and unpaid basis to prepare a draft report on their findings, which will then undergo an intensive peer review by other scientists. “Only when the IAC board is satisfied” will the final report be issued, he said.

Characterizing the task as “forward-looking,” Mr. Dijkgraaf said that there are “no preconceived conclusions.”

The IAC, he said, has been asked to look into issues such as data quality assurance and control; procedures for correcting errors; and analyzing the IPCC’s communications strategies.

qanda - I'd give a reserved agreement to that review panel, however "The IAC is client-driven and works on a project-by-project basis". That concerns me.

Who retains them to do this review and what are their motives? Is it to get a clear view of what's going on, or to exonerate the participants?

So if the UN or the IPCC retains them to do a review, I'd like to see the goals of the review and the guidelines, as well as the list of who will staff it.

I'm suspicious of this area as there have been cover-ups and collusion and I expect more, because there's BIG money involved, that always skews judgment. Consider, if it modifies judgment, if Big Oil or Tobacco pays people, then it stands to reason that Big Green will do exactly the same, moreso since there is more money involved. In Australia alone $800M in the next year in research grants in this area is up for grabs I read somewhere.

You guys could buy and sell Big Oil, no one would notice.

I see today the CSIRO is now wading in, just "offering information, that's all", that's new - previously they had been a cheerleader for AGW and the ALP's stance.

I no longer believe, since all the money that is involved, that you can get a fair or objective view or outcome, there is just too much money at stake and too many people have hitched their wagons to this.

Time will tell, but I fear the disinformation campaign against anyone who is not a nodding believer is going to get big and ugly now, unlike anything we have seen before.

The world will continue to warm, since we are still coming out of an ice age, but we have the greedy who want their bit - NOW! (so they have a very good reason to blame mankind and of course, offer solutions ($)

This area of science now has a credibility issue, that your problem, not mine. Clever arguments and framing of debate, will not overcome it, openness will, in time.